Me: ok here's why we need a revolution to overthrow capitalism. Oh, amd here's how the Russian, Chinese, German and all libetarian revolutions ever have failed to do that.
Other people: ok Lucy, so then what do we do?
Me: *scrambles through stacks of notes* uhhhh, hmmm, fuck, see- well my idea was- uhhh. We just put the good people in charge and hope it works out?
And then the immediate question becomes, well who are the good communists? Who are The Incorruptible expression of the general will? I joke about it being me but I'm just some dip shit 20 year old crazy lady, so the answer I got is idk on the front either lol. I can critique why x group or person is a bad fit but by god can I not answer "what is to be done?"
And this is why my girlfriend Petra is a liberal reformists. Work with the devil we have with some gradualism than have another Mao, Stalin, Robespierre, Toussaint Louverture... ect. thousands to millions will die, 'justified' or not, and you've gotta have an airtight plan uf you want to play that game. Without an airtight plan you get the decay of the revolution and the death of it's ideals and goals with men like Napoleon
I would argue that the ‘degeneration’ - and ultimately the collapse - of near every socialist state is the result of bureaucratization and imperialism.
‘Why socialist states collapse’ and ‘how atrocities are justified’ are related questions, to me.
Why was the Soviet Union overturned, but Cuba never was? How did they survive the collapse of the entire bloc?
I don’t think the USSR was ever as evil as the United States - but we shouldn’t go the way of Stalin, either.
Hold on, I'll be able to answer this long form soon. Ok so, kinda yeah but also no. The degridation if the USSR was due to beaurecrats, but those came into power because literally, the revolutionaries, as in the class conciousness proletariat, pretty much all died by 1923 so there was nothing but the state and the party
If your revolutionaries (i.e. individuals) dying is what dooms the project, then Cuba is on its way out and there's no hope for the rest of us.
So I hope to God that's not why.
I do agree with bureaucratization as a limited explanation. But more the separation of those bureaucrats from the rest of the working class - and their consolidation AS A SEPARATE CLASS.
It's also my explanation for why 'the withering away of the State' never happened/happens.
(sorry for caps - needed emphasis)
No, you're right about the 'Nomenklatura', new class. They took the position of the bourgeoisie. I'm asking for the abolition of class, as Marx does too, that is communism. And i hope Cuba does decay! They have class, they have private property, they have commodity production, they have everything Marx lays out in Capital as being what Capitalism and the Capitalist mode of production is
Thanks for the word!
Formalization of the managerial class
I would disagree on Cuba, though.
It's definitely not capitalist but it's not fully socialist, either.
Private property is exchangeable per Marx. And property in Cuba doesn't have that. You can't sell your house for money, or own another person's.
They're a commodity economy but that alone doesn't constitute capitalism. Capitalism is a particular, historically determined mode built around commodity production, but also around a property relation where one class owns the means of production and it's product, and another works it for just a part of that pay.
Banking and merchant capital existed long before that.
Che was extremely critical of the Soviet Union and Soviet Bloc's model for socialism.
And so was Mao, though that was more around foreign policy than economy.
The top-down management isn't something I'm for. If we want a dictatorship of the working class - then the working class is who should be managing their own economy. And that means bringing them into governance, or bringing governance down into the whole of the people.
The 2018 Constitutional Process is a good example of what that can look like. But more so it's proof that the Cuban people still see Communism as the goal, and themselves as the most important part of that process.
The reforms of the Special Period did a lot of good and bad - towards and away from that.
You're looking for people like Mr. Rogers without the whole religious aspect. That respect and love the people around them, want to see them grow, and would find the idea of doing something expressly for personal gain distasteful.
The issue becomes protecting those people from the... dehumanizing and corrupting aspects of 'power'.
To that, I have no answer. Power corrupts, quite literally it changes the brain to be less empathetic
"We should, like, get rid of the bad people and have some more parks I guess?"-@GreenandBlack :p
Uhhh, a nice idea but Bordiga lays out why multi-party, even communist, government just lets in opportunism as there is room for them to act in the too and fro of policy amd debate. Where a single party state of The Party(tm) is able to have that swift action to destroy capitalism, opportunists and revisionists
Honestly I think that the only way to manage that is to get the general population to get involved. The only way they're going to get involved is if you cause their bubble of 'indifference' to pop.
Well, Marx states that happens when the contradictions within capitalism become so bad and unbearable the proletariat gain that awareness and motivation to revolt. But, I can also point to you that happened with Lenin in Russia in 1917 and I could, and have, written a fucking lot on why that failed to produce communism
Ah. That's not going to happen in the US without someone Really smashing the system. It has to become REAL in the digital age. At the same time, Capitalism has created a world where it's very easy to create a bubble around yourself where nothing gets in and you can block out reality. Expensive headphones, tablets and phones. VR. 🤷 Welcome to the future.
Well, once more, Marx points out the capitalism is a self cannibalistic system so it is bound to collapse in that way... eventually
We've seen it's pretty good at outlasting most communistic countries so far. Now, how would you Hasten that cannibalistic tendency?
Okay, I'm vaguely familiar with Marxism, what were it's negative points vis-a-vis Russia? I know why people are promoting it, but was it just corruption that was the issue?
Communism can't fight capitalism ideologically in a cold war. Only during it's collapse can communism jump out, like it did in 1917-~1936 across Europe after ww1
Nope, you're thinking like a world leader/political researcher. Think like a person with a social media account and a lot of analysis. You're fighting in the 'trenches', what do you do to hasten the demise of Capitalism, or how do you get out of its grasp?
Oh, to me that's just pointless individualism. You cant fight the ideological powers of the state right now, only sit and wait for things to get so bad that people turn to alternatives out of desperation. And if we look at how the environment is projected to be doing in ~50 years... well I think I found our collapse
To me, it sounds like an excuse to excuse yourself from having to be responsible for the answer. You're not trying to fight the ideological powers of the state right now, it's not time. Right now is when you start building the foundation to have the ready answer when things get that bad. You use your 'individualism' to take responsibility and start building now.
If You won't, who will? You cannot ask another to do what you yourself will not.
Or... you get Really active and work to bring about that scenario of it getting bad enough for people to wake up sooner rather than later.
Accelerationism is that idea, it's some woke shit... no, honestly it's a mess to do that and really contradictory to our goals. See, when things get very bad the communists must be seen to fight it, so when the revolutionary time comes the party is there, not to set up a facist state to then try to overthrow themselves, but also we have to wait for the right time to make that party and push back. I'd make the party now myself, but who the fuck is dumb enough to follow me?
You don't make the Party now. You make a community now. I group of people dedicated to supporting each other however they can. You communicate and grow, you someday pitch the question, "What More can we do?" Snowballs and snowballs.
No, I'm honestly of the opinion that if you have to destroy to create you've already fucked up. I found that on a small scale, 1 person living the idea of supporting the people around them LIVING positivity, can actually cause a ripple effect in the people around them.
It's amazing to watch, but I haven't had the chance to test my theory again yet, but if I'm right I might not change the world, but I might just manage to change my outlook on the people in it.
I respect that, but to me and my readings of Marx, death and collapse is coming. Before we got facism from it, we simply can't sit in the ideal of non-violence
I didn't say non-violence. I said if you Have to destroy to create. I'd be ready for violence, but I wouldn't set out with the idea that I must destroy what's in front of me to build something new. Your first plan shouldn't be to destroy to create. Be prepared for it, of course, and defend yourself to a greater extreme then you were attacked.
Oh, don't worry about that. I intend to take a hammer to most all there is, and have the sharp pointy objects to back that up
Perhaps, I mean it is true. But it's also the case I'm a 20 year old girl with like, no deep political organisation to work with that isn't liberal trash
Ooooh. So you're still young, un corrupted (relatively), have your entire life ahead of you, and are intelligent enough to begin working to build your own organisation.
Not to boost my own ego, but I hope so! Now I just need to talk a gullible group of people to construct barricades in Central London and found La Commune De La Londres
The two most common ways people seem to be into 'hastening' the revolution. One is the kind of leftist organising we saw in the 1930s were people worked within communities to build mutual aid structures, etc, which is the origin of the UK Labour Party and also how Saul Lansky operated.
The other is accelerationism, where things are allowed to get so terrible that revolution is inevitable. This method has never worked
I've certainly been having fun with it.
If I had the finances, which I nearly have a few times recently.... ugh. I was going to start working within some communities and building the resources to be able to help on larger and larger scales. I had a whole lot of plans, was putting in the groundwork, and got within a hair's breadth of getting to put them into motion.
Neither have worked :/, so far NOTHING has worked. The breif fleeting 'real' communism of Berlin 1919,Hungary 1956 ect all died in record speeds. On the other hand we have those who 'won' and hoisted the red flag, USSR, PRC ect, and there we have and had *checks notes* hmmm, commodity production, wage labour and classes? Hmm, how 'communist'
@CornishRepublicanArmy @IncessusMortuus I mean, you're right, nothing has lead to a durable worker's state that is like the one we all wish for. However, the kind of organising done by the labour party really had an extremely profoundly positive impact on the lives of working class people in Britain. Obviously, they've changed a lot in the last 80 years, but they were both radical and effective - although their gains ended up being reformist.
I think improving people's lives now does matter.
@CornishRepublicanArmy @IncessusMortuus I think that reformism and radicalism actually work together in a healthy leftist ecosystem. There's no reason these approaches really need to be at odds. One helps the other. People who have been helped by pinko commies are sympathetic to that cause! But infighting certainly helps the owning classes.
Also, holding institutions to account by demanding more is definitely a good and right thing to do!
A witchy space for most any face! Whether a witch or a witch-respecter, join the coven that is free of fash, TERFs, feds, and bigots